I. INTRODUCTION THE Bolam test of breach-that classic and well-known statement of the law, with its genesis being a defendant's reliance upon a body of responsible peer professional opinion-is the "universal test" 1 of professional (and, in some contexts, non-professional 2) negligence. It is qualified, however, by the "gloss" 3 that was applied, courtesy of the House of Lords' 1997 decision in Bolitho v. City and Hackney H.A. 4 By virtue of that decision, peer professional opinion which purportedly represents evidence of responsible medical practice can be departed from, if that opinion is determined by the court to be "not capable of withstanding logical analysis", or is otherwise "unreasonable" or "irresponsible". 5 As has been judicially pointed out, Bolitho turned Bolam on its axis, in that the court, and not the medical profession, became the final arbiter of medical breach. 6 Since then, however, it has become a challenging legal question as to what features particularly characterise a peer professional opinion as one that is "illogical", "irresponsible", and "indefensible". Such labels are difficult to understand or to apply, unless fleshed out with content. As other academic commentary has rightly noted, although "lower courts are taking notice of [Bolitho], it is
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.